When a mother's love is not enough...

Reports: ISIS fighter executes his own mother

Already notorious for its public and gruesome executions, a member of the Islamic State killed his own mother in front of a crowd in Syria this week after she tried to get him to leave the terrorist organization, according to reports.

The man, identified as Ali Saqr, 21, executed her in front of hundreds of people in the northern Syrian city of Raqqa, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and another Syrian rights group cited by The New York Times.

The groups said that she confronted her son and urged him to flee with her out of fear that coalition forces would soon sweep in and wipe out ISIS, the observatory said. Saqr turned her in to ISIS authorities, who then ordered Saqr to execute her in front of the post office where she worked, according to the observatory.

The execution is the latest example of the Islamic State's high-profile executions, which have included beheadings of American citizens, foreign journalists and others captured by the group. [...]

Talk about being disappointed in the way your kid turns out. This has to be among the worst examples. The poor woman.

     

ISIS, ISIL, or IS... or "Daesh"?

Words matter in ‘ISIS’ war, so use ‘Daesh’

The militants who are killing civilians, raping and forcing captured women into sexual slavery, and beheading foreigners in Iraq and Syria are known by several names: the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS; the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL; and, more recently, the Islamic State, or IS. French officials recently declared that that country would stop using any of those names and instead refer to the group as “Daesh.”

The Obama Administration should switch to this nomenclature, too, because how we talk about this group is central to defeating them.

Whether referred to as ISIS, ISIL, or IS, all three names reflect aspirations that the United States and its allies unequivocally reject. Political and religious leaders all over the world have noted this. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said, “This is a terrorist group and not a state. . . the term Islamic State blurs the lines between Islam, Muslims, and Islamists.” President Obama made similar remarks saying, “ISIL is not Islamic . . . and [is] certainly not a state.”

Muslim scholars around the world have denounced the group’s attempt to declare a caliphate. Egyptian Islamic theologian Yusuf al-Qaradawi published an open letter to Muslim scholars explaining, “A group simply announcing a caliphate is not enough to establish a caliphate.” The Syrian Sufi leader Muhammad al-Yacoubi called the group’s declaration “illegitimate” and that supporting it was “haram,” or forbidden.

The term “Daesh” is strategically a better choice because it is still accurate in that it spells out the acronym of the group’s full Arabic name, al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham. Yet, at the same time, “Daesh” can also be understood as a play on words — and an insult. Depending on how it is conjugated in Arabic, it can mean anything from “to trample down and crush” to “a bigot who imposes his view on others.” Already, the group has reportedly threatened to cut out the tongues of anyone who uses the term.

Why do they care so much? The same reason the United States should. Language matters.

With some 30,000 to 50,000 fighters, Daesh is a relatively small group, and propaganda is central to its growth strategy. Whether hijacking popular Twitter hashtags or using little known distribution channels to post videos to YouTube, their leadership knows that the war of words online is just as key to increasing its power and influence as the actual gruesome acts they commit on the ground.

By using the militants’ preferred names, the US government implicitly gives them legitimacy. But referring to the group as Daesh doesn’t just withhold validity. It also might help the United States craft better policy. [...]

I first heard the term "Daesh" being used by Putin. Now I know why. And I see why the French now want to use it. So should we.

The rest of this article, which is not very long, talks about the many good reasons to be using the name Daesh, and about the many Muslim groups and scholars around the world who know ISIS, ISIL, IS as Daesh. And they oppose Daesh, vehemently, for many reasons. The article has embedded links for many of these Muslim anti-Daesh groups.

Not only is it encouraging to know that these groups and scholars exist, but the article explains why it's important to use the name Daesh, so our allies in the Muslim world know that we understand, using the word from their language, that we share the same concerns about the same people.

"Daesh". I was sold on it at "a bigot who imposes his view on others." Hopefully President Obama will get on board with using this name. If he does, the media will likely follow his lead.

     

Islamists to gain ground in Middle East politics

At least that's the way it looks to be unfolding:

As Tunisians Cheer Egypt, Islamist Leader Returns

Now it's being predicted that the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood will also rise to power in Egypt, and replace the current Dictatorship of Mubarak.

Years ago, I posted about the Nazi roots of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the actual, strong, historical connections. It begs the question: how much are they still like that, today? Or can we say, "That was then, this is now?"

There are people who claim that the Muslim Brotherhood is more moderate. It has defenders like Omar Sharif, who see it as a force for good. Can it be? Will it be? Is it possible?

In the late 70's, the Islamists in Iran claimed to be moderate, but we saw what happened when they got power. I think it's that kind of drastic change that Hillary Clinton wants to avoid, while at the same time recognizing that change IS coming:

Clinton: U.S. not taking sides in Egypt

[...] Clinton waffled Sunday on the political upheaval in Egypt, praising and decrying the process in a Fox News interview.

Clinton's diplomatic skills were tested in the interview when pressed about the uprising that has killed more than 50 people in Egypt, where the 30-year autocratic rule of Mubarak is being challenged.

She also hinted the United States sees an end to Mubarak's reign.

"We want to see an orderly transition so that no one fills a void, that there's not a void, that there be a well thought-out plan that will bring about a democratic, participatory government," Clinton said.

Despite the "transition" reference, Clinton said there was confidence in Washington about Mubarak's governance. [...]

I'm sure the White House is hedging it's bets, because they are uncertain about who's going to come out on top. We have just a little influence, but no control, over that. I think that the "orderly transition" that she spoke of is going to be their main focus. It sounds like the best plan. Helping to avoid that "void".

The U.S. is often accused by Leftists of tolerating dictators. But if we over-throw a dictator, like we did in Iraq, we are accused of meddling in foreign affairs where we don't belong. Damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

The fact is, we often have to deal with governments we would rather not deal with, because we have no control and little influence over their internal affairs.

In another interview I read, Clinton said that the Egyptian people are going to choose who their leadership is. I suspect she's right, and we will just have to deal with it.

And if the Muslim Brotherhood is "it", well, lets hope that Omar Sharif's optimism regarding them is at least somewhat justified.
     

Britain's Con-Dems and the Islamists

The UK and Islamist Terror: Conservatives Putting the Nation at Risk?

[...] The Conservative-led coalition government faces serious challenges, perhaps most especially in regard to Islamist extremism, which it seems intellectually ill-equipped to combat.

Pundits suggest that the coalition ("Con-Dem") government will collapse, possibly within a year or two, and that the Labour party might even be swept back into office. With the Conservatives having abandoned their defining values, and having aligned themselves with the left-wing Liberal Democrats, another threat comes from the right, both from within and from without the party.

Three days before the election, the Conservatives issued their A Contract for Equalities - arguably their real manifesto – articulating how the party would make anti-discrimination "central" to a Conservative government. The problem is not that the Conservatives want people to be judged by their character rather than by the skin color, etc. That is entirely right and proper – as virtually everyone in Britain recognizes.

The problem is that this sort of "anti-discrimination" is ideological: those who openly reject cultural relativism, believe in Britishness, democracy, etc., constitute an oppressor class, that has, and that is, dominating various oppressed classes. This is not an ideology in which Whites are regarded as the exclusive oppressors of non-Whites, but, rather, one in which the West oppresses the non-Western. The Sikh that champions democracy and inveighs against radical Islam is also certain to be deemed a "racist" and lumped in with neo-Nazis.

Cameron believes that people become Islamists – and, perhaps eventually commit acts of terror – not because they are attracted to, and eventually believe in, Islamist ideology per se, but because they have been oppressed. Islamist ideology is not a factor, as attraction to it must be preceded by discrimination. The nation is to blame.

This was perfectly clear from his statements and actions in the lead-up to the election.

By pushing female, gay, ethnic and religious minorities into safe seats, and thus into government, Cameron asserted, other members of these groups would realize that they were equal citizens in Britain, with equal rights and opportunities. By merely seeing more "minority" MPs, the rifts in society would magically repair themselves.

According to the party's pre-election statement on national security, "Government cannot provide security without the trust and support of its citizens." In other words, if Muslims do not trust or support the government, then they might drift into extremism. The Conservatives thus promised to "review and consolidate […] counter-terrorism and security laws introduced by Labour," and especially to review the "Prevent" scheme, "supposed to stop vulnerable people from becoming terrorists but which has been accused of spying on innocent Muslims." (Prevent was set up by the previous government, specifically to combat the growth of Islamist extremism and terrorism, by working with Imams, and so on.)

Cameron shares his "anti-discrimination" worldview with coalition partners, the uncompromisingly left-wing, LibDems. Of greater consequence, though, it has also now become the defining ideology of most of those at the top of the "progressive" Conservative party. [...]

The full article gives examples of what the dangers are, and where this appears to be going.

Regardless of what anyone may think of "identity politics", one can argue that this strategy of the Brits has had some success in politically co-opting and placating some groups that might otherwise be more hostile. It may even work with some Muslims. But with the hard-core Islamists, who actually implement terrorist attacks? Will they not just see it as more appeasement and weakness, and cause them to attack even more furiously and intently? That's what the author of the article seems to think. That Cameron and the Con-Dems are putting themselves and the country in harms way. In any case, regardless of what any of us thinks, we shall see what happens.


Meanwhile, we have a similar dynamic at work in our own government:

The Alien in the White House
The author goes on about the President in particular, but also about people in his administration and their views, which on matters of terrorism, are similar to Great Britain's government:

[...] And who can forget the exhortations on jihad by John Brennan, Mr. Obama's chief adviser on counterterrorism? Mr. Brennan has in the past charged that Americans lack sensitivity to the Muslim world, and that we have particularly failed to credit its peace-loving disposition. In a May 26 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Mr. Brennan held forth fervently, if not quite comprehensibly, on who our enemy was not: "Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is just a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind, and as Americans we refuse to live in fear."

He went on to announce, sternly, that we do not refer to our enemies as Islamists or jihadists because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam. How then might we be permitted to describe our enemies? One hint comes from another of Mr. Brennan's pronouncements in that speech: That "violent extremists are victims of political, economic and social forces."

Yes, that would work. Consider the news bulletins we could have read: "Police have arrested Faisal Shahzad, victim of political, economic and social forces living in Connecticut, for efforts to set off a car bomb explosion in Times Square." Plotters in Afghanistan and Yemen, preparing for their next attempt at mass murder in America, could only have listened in wonderment. They must have marvelled in particular on learning that this was the chief counterterrorism adviser to the president of the United States. [...]

Can you say "Dhimmitude"? You can be sure that Muslim extremists can.
     

Flotilla participants got what they wanted

Martyrdom:

Arab Media Reports on Flotilla Participants: Writing Wills, Preparing for Martyrdom, Determined to Reach Gaza or Die

Flotilla Participants

Following is information from the Arab media about some of the flotilla participants. It should be noted that many of these were from the Muslim Brotherhood across the Muslim world.

(For more on this subject, see also MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 2986, "MEMRI TV Clips on the Gaza Flotilla: Activists On Board Chant Songs of Martyrdom at Departure," http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4249.htm.)

Egypt

In Friday sermons, Muslim Brotherhood General Guide Muhammad Badi' expressed support for Hamas, frequently reiterating harsh statements in favor of jihad and of the armed struggle in Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan (see http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4254.htm).

The Egyptian flotilla delegation included two members of the Muslim Brotherhood bloc in the Egyptian parliament: Muhammad Al-Baltaji and Hazem Farouq.

Al-Baltaji, who is deputy secretary-general of the Muslim Brotherhood parliamentary bloc in Egypt, said at a March 2010 conference, "A nation that excels at dying will be blessed by Allah with a life of dignity and with eternal paradise." He also said that his movement "will never recognize Israel and will never abandon the resistance," and that "resistance is the only road map that can save Jerusalem, restore the Arab honor, and prevent Palestine from becoming a second Andalusia.[1] [...]

It goes on to list news reports from Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Yemen, Kuwait, Bahrain, and more, confirming that they were Jihadis preparing to die.

These are Middle Eastern news sources acknowledging this. So why does the Western media keep insisting it was "just humanitarian aid", when everyone in the Middle East knows it wasn't?

President Obama is criticizing Israel for not handling the situation better. Given that many of the flotilla participants were armed to the teeth and ready to die as martyrs, how could it have turned out any differently than it did?

Of course the Muslim Brotherhood was deeply involved, as well as an assortment of Western commies. They have so much in common.
     

Soviet Walls, Islamic Walls... May They All Fall

From Berlin to Baghdad
Will the peoples of Islam tear down their walls as the people of Central and Eastern Europe tore down theirs?

[...] A meandering road led from 11/9 to 9/11. The burning grounds of Islam are altogether different than the Communist challenge. There is no Moscow that serves as the seat of Jihadist power. This is a new kind of war and new kind of enemy, a twilight war without front lines.

But we shouldn't be surprised with some of history's repetitions. There are again the appeasers who see these furies of Islam as America's comeuppance, there are those who think we have overreached and that we are riding into storms of our own making. And in the foreign world there are chameleons who feign desire for our friendship while subverting our causes.

Once again, there arises the question in our midst of whether political freedom, broadly conceived, can and ought to be taken to distant lands. In the George W. Bush years, American power and diplomacy gave voice to a belief in freedom's possibilities. A different sentiment animates American practice today.

For the peoples of Islam, the question can be squarely put: Will they tear down their walls in the manner in which the people of Central and Eastern Europe tore down theirs? The people of Islam are thus sorely tested. They will have to show their own fidelity to liberty. [...]

But will they? CAN they? And how can we help?


Related Link:

Will Turkey bring Islam into the 21st century?
     

Maj. Hasan, Ft. Hood, and the painfully obvious: say it, and deal with it, or get out of the way

Dr. Phil and the Fort Hood Killer
His terrorist motive is obvious to everyone but the press and the Army brass.

[...] What is hard to ignore, now, is the growing derangement on all matters involving terrorism and Muslim sensitivities. Its chief symptoms: a palpitating fear of discomfiting facts and a willingness to discard those facts and embrace the richest possible variety of ludicrous theories as to the motives behind an act of Islamic terrorism. All this we have seen before but never in such naked form. The days following the Fort Hood rampage have told us more than we want to know, perhaps, about the depth and reach of this epidemic.

One of the first outbreaks of these fevers, the night of the shootings, featured television's star psychologist, Dr. Phil, who was outraged when fellow panelist and former JAG officer Tom Kenniff observed that he had been listening to a lot of psychobabble and evasions about Maj. Hasan's motives.

A shocked Dr. Phil, appalled that the guest had publicly mentioned Maj. Hasan's Islamic identity, went on to present what was, in essence, the case for Maj. Hasan as victim. Victim of deployment, of the Army, of the stresses of a new kind of terrible war unlike any other we have known. Unlike, can he have meant, the kind endured by those lucky Americans who fought and died at Iwo Jima, say, or the Ardennes?

It was the same case to be presented, in varying forms, by guest psychologists, the media, and a representative or two from the military, for days on end.

The quality and thrust of this argument was best captured by the impassioned Dr. Phil, who asked us to consider, "how far out of touch with reality do you have to be to kill your fellow Americans . . . this is not a well act." And how far out of touch with reality is such a question, one asks in return—not only of Dr. Phil, but of the legions of commentators like him immersed in the labyrinths of motive hunting even as the details of Maj. Hasan's proclivities became ever clearer and more ominous.

To kill your fellow Americans—as many as possible, unarmed and in the most helpless of circumstances, while shouting "Allahu Akbar" (God is great), requires, of course, only murderous hatred—the sort of mindset that regularly eludes the Dr. Phils of our world as the motive for mass murder of this kind. [...]

There are plenty of people who think just like Dr. Phil. If it's not "politically correct", then they don't want to see it. And they don't. Which is how this travesty was allowed to happen at Fort Hood in the first place. Political Correctness may be the death of us all. If we keep on being in denial of the obvious, where will that lead us?

J.R. Dunn at the American Thinker blog has some thoughts on that.

     

The words and deeds of Hamas, leading up to the Gaza conflict. The war was inevitable.

And unavoidable. Look at the video, it's less than 3 minutes, and it's footage you will never see on your TV news (but the Palestinians see it on their TV). Hamas sure wasn't saying "Give Peace a Chance". Quite the opposite; world conquest, and death to anyone who gets in their way. It's part of an ideology that's much bigger than just this war in Gaza.



What really gets me is, all the so-called liberals in the West, bending over backwards to support these goons. And it sure isn't just Jews they want to kill:


And it isn't just the Jews and the Americans:


And it isn't just Jews, Americans and Italians... the list goes on. It sounds a lot like Nazism. Not surprising, given the Nazi roots of this Islamic malaise, which extend back to Hajj Amin al Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. It's the worst features of militant Islam, merged with one of the worst ideologies Western culture has ever created.

Hamas is killing and wounding (shooting in the kneecaps) fellow Palestinians who they suspect might oppose Hamas in favor of Israel. Western liberals could show support for Palestinians who actually want peace, instead of supporting these neo-nazi monsters.


Related Links:

Shahada (Prayer for a son)

Hamas: projecting their own bloodlust?

From Hamas TV: "Brothers of Apes and Pigs"

Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony on Hamas TV
     

Of Mice and (Muslim Clerical) Men: Kill Micky

Sharia Law says: Micky Mouse must die?

Any religion can be taken to absurdity, but Islam seems to have more than it's fair share of absurd clerics.

Islamic scholar: Mickey Mouse must die

On Aug 27 Sheikh Muhammad Al-Munajid told viewers of a religious affairs programme that mice were agents of Satan and that Sharia law called for the extermination of all mice: from the common house mouse (Mus musculus) to cartoon mouse (Mickey Mouse).

A former diplomat attached to the Islamic Affairs Department at the Saudi embassy Washington, al-Munajid appears regularly on Saudi television to discuss religious and ethical topics.

On Aug 10 he denounced the Beijing Olympics as the “bikini Olympics,” saying the immodest dress of women athletes was “satanic” and earlier issued a fatwa, or religious edict, against women’s participation in the Olympics as the games were also “satanic”. [...]

To be fair, I have heard of extremist Christians also complaining of "satanic" Disney cartoon characters. But they don't issue fatwas, and they are a small minority and nobody takes them very seriously. I wish I could say the same about some of these Islamic clerics. Many have "issues" about fun.

[...] According to a translation of the broadcast prepared by the Middle East Media Research Institute, al-Munajid was asked to state the Islamic legal teaching on mice. He responded that mice were called “little corrupters” in Sharia and it was permissible to kill them at all times.

“The mouse is one of Satan's soldiers and is steered by him,” he explained, adding that should a mouse come in contact with food, the food must be disposed of as the mouse is an impure creature.

“According to Islamic law, the mouse is a repulsive, corrupting creature,” al-Munajid said, adding that he was concerned that popular culture had given mice an undeserved positive image.

“How do you think children view mice today – after Tom and Jerry?” he asked.

“Even creatures that are repulsive by nature, by logic, and according to Islamic law have become wonderful and are loved by children. Even mice. Mickey Mouse has become an awesome character, even though according to Islamic law, Mickey Mouse should be killed in all cases.”

Don't get me wrong; I'm all for killing vermin. I live on a farm, and I kill vermin. One doesn't have to be Muslim or even religious to understand that vermin carry diseases and need kill'n. It's just that in a modern, enlightened culture, people generally understand that one can make distinctions between disease carrying vermin, domestic pets, laboratory animals, and cartoon characters. Mice can be each of these, yet each is distinctly different, and not hard to understand. But if you are slavishly devoted to rigidly interpreting a book according to 7th century standards, in a completely literal and narrow context, you are going to cause a lot of problems in the 21st century. Like having to kill everyone and everything that disagrees with your interpretation of your 7th century religion.

The truth can always hold up to scrutiny. The Islamic world could benefit greatly by scrutinizing many of their long-held beliefs. In this regard, I think there are some reasons to be hopeful. The 21st century beckons us all. I think we can all get there in one piece, and live in peace, if we don't become unduly overly-concerned with things like rodents in all their many manifestations. Or women in sports. Or short pants on soccer players.

As for this particular cleric, I have to agree with George Handlery at the Brussels Journal:

Duly Noted: Mickey Mouse Must Die

[...] There must be a shortage of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Animists and Buddhists to kill. When will the Religion of Peace go after Donald D.?

Indeed.



Here is a video of the cleric who feels threatened by Micky Mouse:

Saudi Cleric Muhammad Al-Munajid: Mickey Mouse Must Die!




Related Links:

Is Islam compatible with a free society?

Hamas Micky Mouse becomes Martyr on TV
(apparently mice are good when they die for Jihad)

Omar Sharif and other Arabs in a changing world

     

Death penalty for bloggers in Iran?

Iranian Human Rights Group Protests Bill Setting Death Penalty For Blogs, Websites "Promoting Corruption And Apostasy"

Iran’s Defenders of Human Rights Center released a statement on July 19 protesting a bill seeking to toughen punishment for crimes ‎deemed to "disrupt public security" and to "intensify the scheme of punishment for disrupting the mental security of society."

The Majlis is set to ratify the bill, after ratifying ‎the first step on July 2.

According to the statement, "the bill not only increases the number of ‎crimes punishable by death, but also endangers the security of citizens if it is passed, ‎given its deficiencies." ‎The center criticized the bill for ‎defining "malicious" acts as deserving of death, and noted that that another section of the bill establishes that "weblogs and sites promoting corruption and ‎apostasy are deserving of capital punishment in the same way that crimes such as rape and ‎armed robbery are."

‎Source: Rooz, Iran, July 21, 2008

Death as "punishment for disrupting the mental security of society"? Mental security? That must be a pretty damn fragil mental society they are trying to protect. Isn't it really just another way to clampdown on an increasingly restless population? Tensions in Iran continue to grow:

Power Outage, Shortages, Fuel Crises Disrupt Life In Iran

The London daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi reports that severe disruptions in the supply of gasoline and water and in supplies of agricultural produce in Iran are being caused by severe drought that is harming agricultural yields and slowing operation of water turbines.

In addition, the sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program are making it difficult to obtain parts for the turbines, further disrupting their operation.

Mas'oud, an Iranian retiree, said that because of the power outages, he must stand in line for hours at the bank in order to receive his pension payment.

Source: Al-Quds Al-Arabi, London, July 25, 2008

Domestic problems in the country continue to multiply, while Iran spends it's money on propaganda and terrorist support beyond it's borders:

Egypt Shuts Down Iranian Television Station In Cairo

Egyptian police closed the Iranian Arabic-language Al-'Alam television station and confiscated its equipment, claiming that the station had no permit to broadcast in Egypt.

The closure came at a time of tension between Cairo and Tehran due to the release in Iran of the Iranian film "Assassination of a Pharaoh" praising the assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Al-Sadat.

According to Al-'Alam's website, the Egyptian police claimed that the station was a partner in producing the film.

Source: Al-Zaman, Iraq, July 24, 2008

Iran is doing many things on many fronts to create instability throughout the Middle East. By removing Saddam Hussein from Iraq, we eliminated Iran's largest enemy in the region. Only half the problem has been delt with, and we dare not leave it like this now, even the Europeans understand the danger. Whether they will do anything to stop help stop it remains to be seen.


Related Links:

Is it time for regime change in Iran yet?

Hangings in Iran increase, to silence dissent

Iran's pressing needs and Iraq's vulnerability.
     

Omar Sharif and other Arabs in a changing world

Egyptian Movie Star Omar Al-Sharif: Americans Are Ignorant; We Arabs Prefer the Neighborhood Sheik to Democracy

The link is a clip to an interview he did for Al-Hayat TV. The title annoyed me. When I watched the clip, I was a little more sympathetic, but not too much. He claims that Americans are ignorant because the majority of Americans don't travel outside of North America.

I'm pretty sure the majority of the people in the Middle East don't travel outside of the Middle East either; they aren't all wealthy jet-setters like himself, but the irony seems lost on him. Then he goes on about how the Middle East will never be democratic, and how the sheiks solve everything, etc.

Now it's not easy to criticize him on this point, because there is truth to what he says; it will never be just like the West, nor should it be. However, he's also part of an older generation that's resisting change. I don't say that's necessarily bad, but the world he knew is disappearing, and it's going to be replaced with something else, whether he likes it or not. The system he embraces works slowly, and is part of the past. The modern world moves much faster now, and the Arab world is being pulled into it, regardless. They need to adapt and find accommodation to it, in a way that works for them.

I don't think George Bush meant to make the Middle East a carbon copy of ourselves, yet he did recognize the need for change in the Middle East; that a state with modern technology requires some form of modern governance. Exactly HOW that government would form, and what it would turn out LIKE, are the gamble that Bush has taken, and we have yet to fully see the results, as the venture is still on-going.

So while I can't completely agree with al-Sharif, I also know he's not completely wrong either. The Old Arab World and the New Modern World are clashing; helping them to accommodate each other is the task before us. It's not easy, but neither can it be avoided, it MUST happen; the best we can do is try to help it along, even though the road is difficult.

As for Sharif himself, it's difficult to know exactly where he stands:


Egypt: Omar Sharif Defends Muslim Brotherhood

[...] Famous for his roles in David Lean's visually sumptuous productions Lawrence of Arabia (1962) and Dr Zhivago (1965), he is better known for his bridge-playing expertise nowadays than for his acting. He still acts, yet for some bizarre reason, Muslim extremists have attacked him for his screen roles.

[...]

On a web message board which had previously been used by al Qaeda, a Muslim called "bachirma1" wrote: "Omar Sharif has stated that he has embraced the crusader idolatry. He is a crusader who is offending Islam and Muslims and receiving applause from the Italian people. I give you this advice, brothers, you must kill him."

Now, according to AKI, Omar Sharif, while addressing the organisers of the Cairo Film Festival, has bizarrely said that the infamous Muslim Brotherhood is not a threat to freedom of expression.

Banned in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood (al-Ikhwanu I-Muslimin or Hizb al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimoon) is quietly tolerated. In the Egyptian parliament, 88 of the 454 seats are taken by Muslim Brotherhood MPs, who entered September's elections passing themselves off as "independents".

Omar Sharif said: "I have know them for a long time and I remember that some members of the organisations in the 1950s were like me passionate about the avant garde in cinema and theatre."

"The Muslim Brotherhood does not threaten artistic freedom and I don't think that in the areas of innovation and art there is anything to fear from their strong presence in parliament."

He also claimed that "their victory at the last parliamentary elections is not a negative thing."

Apart from the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood has killed its opponents, and its former spiritual leader, Sayyid Qutb, advocated killing as a political tool, the Muslim Brotherhood is Islamist in nature. Ayman al-Zawahiri was a member of the group before becoming a member of Egyptian Jihad and now al Qaeda.

The Muslim Brotherhood has given birth to many radical groups, including the terror group Hamas. The Brotherhood is also passionately anti-semitic and incites on its children's website hatred against Jews and Americans. It also indoctrinates the minds of its child surfers that it is a duty to wage armed jihad.

But if 74-year old Omar Sharif really believes that the Muslim Brotherhood supports creativity and freedom of speech, perhaps he is suffering senile deterioration. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) Is he trying to straddle two worlds? Are there subtleties at work here that we've missed? Both? Neither? Or is he just Egypt's version of Susan Sarandon, bending over backwards to embrace those who would kill us?

Did you know that Sharif started life as a Christian, and converted to Islam? And now he says he's an atheist? Read the whole thing for more interesting information about Sharif's background and career, with many embedded links.

As for Sharif's comments about ignorance in America, he shouldn't neglect to look in his own back yard as well. I don't have enough time to blog about all the ignorant things many Sheiks and Imams in the Middle East say about America and the West. Imams telling their followers lies, real whoppers, lies such as that Americans burn down movie theaters that show films critical of Christianity, as if to demonstrate that violent religious intolerance is normal in the rest of the world. The infamous Danish Cartoon riots were started by deliberate lies that were spread about the cartoons, to create the riots.

Perhaps more of the "neighborhood Sheiks" need to work on addressing the ignorance being preached in their neighborhoods? Occasionally, while looking through the many videos on Memri.org, I have seen sheiks and imams doing just that. Brave souls! I applaud them, and hope we start to see many more. For the sake of the Middle East. For the sake of us all.


Related Links:

State Islam and a modern society are incompatible

The Nazi roots of the Muslim Brotherhood

Islamism's actual NAZI history

Wikipedia: Omar Sharif
     

We must abandon the principle of free speech

WHAT!?! If we want to reconcile with Islam, that is what we must do, according to some Islamist "authorities". American writer Joshua Trevino at the Brussel's Journal has the details:

Too Good to Win. Is the West Losing the War?

[...] Last week, I returned from the Third International Conference on the Muslim World and the West in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The aim of the conference was to “bridge the gap,” as they put it, between the Muslim world and the West.

Now, this seems like a worthy thing. Surely we of the West ought to find our common ground with the Muslim world, and vice versa. Surely there is common ground to be found. Surely the problems between us are predominantly problems of understanding and comprehension… and surely they are solvable with a little goodwill.

I admit to having been a bit dismayed when, at a pre-conference interview, the chairman — a Columbia University alumnus named Imam Feisal Rauf — told me that Muslim violence was “predominantly” the fault of Westerners. Nonetheless, I soldiered on in the belief that we could — how to put it? — bridge the gap.

To say that the luminaries of the conference disappointed my hopes is to understate things. But to say that that were luminous is to be perfectly accurate. I’ll just name three of the most prominent and powerful:

• Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Ekmeleddin Ihsanouglu of Turkey.
• Former Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz.
• His Royal Highness Prince Turki bin Faisal al Saud, former director of Saudi intelligence, and until recently the Saudi Ambassador to the United States.

These men are educated… well traveled… experienced… wealthy… and Westernized. And each of them told the conference that for the West and Islam to reconcile, the West must abandon the principle of free speech. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) Josh give the details of what they said, and it's shocking. It's bad enough that the whole conference was like that. But even worse, all the representatives from the West who were invited to speak agreed with them! Josh speculated about that:

[...] The deputy speaker of the French National Assembly was there, as was a Spanish ambassador, an Australian MP, and various other mostly European functionaries. Every single one of them accepted the demand for an end to free speech without complaint.

We might call this the mindset of the quisling. Or, to invoke the opposite side of that historical allusion, we might say that they merely adhere to Winston Churchill’s admonition that “it is better to jaw-jaw than to war-war.”

There is tremendous wisdom in Churchill’s statement — but to take it at face value is to ignore that the man himself would not “jaw-jaw” with simply anyone, on any terms. This, after all, is a man for whom Mohandas Gandhi was deemed a morally unfit interlocutor. (I believe Churchill was right on this, but that’s for another speech.) Churchill rightly understood that to talk with someone in the absence of conditions gives some measure of moral sanction to that person.

For Churchill, to sit down with Hitler on equal terms, conceding from the start the legitimacy of the Nazi’s desires, was to lose the battle before it began. [...]

Churchill wasn't a fool, and we would do well to follow his example. And lest you think this is merely a Muslim bashing article, it's not. Josh does not agree that these attitudes represent the whole of the Islamic world. He maintains that we must not accept the "logic" that our freedom is responsible for Islamic terror, and insists that we have an obligation, to ourselves and the Islamic world, to stand up and defend our freedom. He ends the article with an explanation of why he became a Republican at the tender age of nine. Way to go, I say.
     

Obama: A Change Hamas can believe in

Why is the terrorist group Hamas so enthusiastic about supporting Obama? From Nealz Nuze:

THE MESSIAH "UNDERSTANDS" HAMAS

I touched on this briefly on the program yesterday. Barack Obama says that he understands why top Hamas advisers support him for president. Isn't that sweet? He says, "It's conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, 'This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he's not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush."

My translation? Horsesqueeze.

Are we really to believe that Hamas would endorse a candidate for the US presidency based on the fact that he has spent some time in the Muslim world? Not exactly. Muslim terrorists and radicals will endorse and support Barack Obama because they know he will not be a bother to them. He will not stand up to Islamic extremism. This is a guy who wants talk, not action. They absolutely love talk, Muslims have managed to become about 25% of the population of Europe while all this talking is going on. When people are just sitting around talking it leaves radical Muslims free to act. You talk. We'll act.

There's more Obamanation news out there. Now we read that Obama referred to Israel as a "constant sore" that infects all of our foreign policy. Well, that certainly ought to really bring on the support from Jewish voters.

OBAMA'S SUPPORT ... IN PALESTINE

Al-Jazeera has produced a report showing Palestinians in Gaza campaigning for Barack Obama. In fact, not only are they campaigning but they are working at a phone bank, calling people in America to ask them to vote for Obama. One of the pro-Obama Palestinian organizers says that he is voting for Barack Obama because he studied his campaign manifesto and thought that he was a man capable of change.

Change? Well, if we stopped fighting Islamic radicalism ... that would be a change, wouldn't it? That would be change that Muslims can believe in.

(bold emphasis mine) I'm sure Hamas agrees with Obama's "constant sore" remark about Israel. And an aggressor always finds an appeaser more appealing. Hamas favors not only Obama, but the Democrats generally. It's a fact.

Now Obama is making a fuss about a speech President Bush made to the Israeli Knesset. Obama was not singled out in the speech, but he apparently sees himself in the remarks. Obama has said that we should be talking to Iran, just as many other Democrats have too. Obama's remarks are a matter of public record. He did say it. Yet he wasn't singled out in the speech. So what's the fuss about? Is no one allowed to disagree with Obama? Is it too distracting from his efforts to get himself elected?
     

The resurgence of Europe's "spine"

It seems that local governments along Europe's historic "spine" are attempting to assert themselves. From Paul Belien at the Brussels Journal:

What’s Going Right in Europe – How Localism Might Save the Continent

[...] While France succumbs to North Africans and Germany to Turks, the parties from Old Lorraine, the spine of Europe, are preparing to fight for the preservation of their own identity. Owing to the massive immigration by people from an entirely different culture, many ordinary Europeans no longer feel at home in their own countries. Home is that cosy, often small, place where people feel safe among those whom they know and trust. The fight for the preservation of Europe is a fight for one’s own home, village, town, city, provence. That is why it is a localist issue.

Resistance to Islamization is not a matter of ideology, as one prominent American “anti-Jihadist” seems to think. The successful resistance in Europe has a provincial and an ethnic basis. It is about the right of the Europeans to hand their traditions, their identity, their cultural heritage down to their children so that the latter can continue to enjoy Europe’s ancient freedoms. The spirit of Old Lorraine has survived for 1,200 years. “Populist” parties in Flanders, Switzerland, Lombardia, Cologne and Alsace and other regions along the spine of Europe are popular for the simple reason that they are not prepared to let twelve centuries of capitalist self-reliance, self-governance and limited government fade away simply because foreigners are moving in with a spirit adapted to Arabian desert life. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) The article has some interesting figures on illegal immigration in Spain and Italy, the numerous amnesties that have been repeatedly granted over the years to assimilate them, and the political ramifications of that, but the article's not primarily just about immigration.

Belien goes into a detailed history of this European spine, where he claims capitalism in Europe had it's origins, and describes it as a place "...where citizens are still influenced by centuries of independence, self-reliance and adherence to a local identity that opposes centralizing authorities in far-away capitals."

It's interesting history, and it's interesting how he uses it as argument against Robert Spencer's argument that Jihadism should be fought as an ideology. I think there are merits in both points of view. Ethnicity and ideology are often closely linked, so it's not just a simple either/or scenario.

What I don't quite see is, how this spine of Europe is going to manage to exert any political power in the European Union, which seems hell-bent on ignoring or crushing such citizens. Yet there is also resistance to the EU from Ireland and other places, as discussed in one of the links below. It will be interesting to see where this goes.


Related articles at the Brussel's Journal:

Europe’s Fate and Turkey’s Progress

Freedom Fighters in Ireland, the Czech Republic and Germany Oppose EU Treaty
     

Is the Middle East Preparing for War?

Heck, they are always preparing for war, but I mean sometime real soon? This article from Newsmax.com seems to think there are many signs that say yes:

Source: U.S. Strike on Iran Nearing

[...] A number of signs indicate that, contrary to the belief President Bush is a lame duck who will not act before he leaves office, the U.S. is poised to strike before Iran can acquire nuclear weapons and carry out the threat of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to “wipe Israel off the map”:

According to intelligence sources, the administration now rejects the National Intelligence Estimate report issued in December that asserted Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in late 2003.

The French daily Le Monde reported in March that newly surfaced documents show that Iran has continued developing nuclear weapons. In late 2006, U.S. intelligence reportedly intercepted a phone conversation in Iran’s Defense Ministry in which the nuclear weapons program was discussed.

The commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, Admiral William Fallon, resigned in March amid media reports that he broke with President Bush’s strategy on Iran and did not want to be in the chain of command when the order comes down from the President to launch a strike on the Islamic Republic.

Democrats suggested he had been forced out because of his candor in opposing Bush’s Iran plans, and Esquire magazine contended that Fallon’s departure signaled that the U.S. is preparing to attack Iran.

According to a Tehran-based Iranian news network, Press TV, Saudi Arabia is taking emergency steps in preparing to counter any “radioactive hazards” that may result from an American attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The Saudi newspaper Okaz disclosed that the Saudi government has approved nuclear fallout preparations, and the Iranian network reported that the approval came a day after Cheney met with the kingdom’s high-ranking officials, further stating that the U.S. “is now informing its Arab allies of a potential war.”

The American commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, has stepped up criticism of Iran, telling Congress last week that Iranian support for Shiite militias posed the most serious threat to Iraq’s stability. He told senators : “Iran has fueled the violence in a particularly damaging way.” Last week, the U.S. said Iran was providing insurgents with missiles that were killing Americans and hitting targets within the U.S. occupied Green Zone in Baghdad.

MSNBC Commentator Pat Buchanan said Petraeus’ remarks to Congress lay the groundwork for a U.S. attack on Iran.

President Bush said in a speech at the White House on April 10 that Iran, along with al-Qaida, are “two of the greatest threats to America.”

He said Iran “can live in peace with its neighbors,” or “continue to arm and train and fund illegal militant groups which are terrorizing the Iraqi people … If Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests and our troops and our Iraqi partners.” [...]

These are just some of the reasons given, there's more details in the article. I've seen articles like this before though. It's easy to speculate, but harder to predict what actually will happen. Much depends on what any of the players do. The potential is certainly there. I've also read arguments about why it won't happen, but I don't think it's a certainty either way.

Ahmadinejad has been preparing for war for years, and has many reasons for wanting it to happen, based on his strong apocalyptic religious beliefs. As long as he is in power, war seems likely sooner or later. If Iran gets Nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia will want them too, and Turkey will feel compelled to have them as well, etc etc. If war happens THEN, it will be much worse than anything that happens now. If war is going to happen sooner or later, there may be advantages to having it sooner. It could be the lesser of two evils.
     

From Hamas TV: "Brothers of Apes and Pigs"

Click here to view video clip

Hamas MP and Cleric Yunis Al-Astal in a Friday Sermon:

"We Will Conquer Rome, and from There Continue to Conquer the Two Americas and Eastern Europe"

Following are excerpts from an address by Hamas MP and cleric Yunis Al-Astal, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV on April 11, 2008.

Yunis Al-Astal: Allah has chosen you for Himself and for His religion, so that you will serve as the engine pulling this nation to the phase of succession, security, and consolidation of power, and even to conquests thorough da'wa and military conquests of the capitals of the entire world. Very soon, Allah willing, Rome will be conquered, just like Constantinople was, as was prophesized by our Prophet Muhammad. Today, Rome is the capital of the Catholics, or the Crusader capital, which has declared its hostility to Islam, and has planted the brothers of apes and pigs in Palestine in order to prevent the reawakening of Islam – this capital of theirs will be an advanced post for the Islamic conquests, which will spread through Europe in its entirety, and then will turn to the two Americas, and even Eastern Europe.

I believe that our children or our grandchildren will inherit our Jihad and our sacrifices, and Allah willing, the commanders of the conquest will come from among them. Today, we instill these good tidings in their souls, and by means of the mosques and the Koran books, and the history of our Prophets, his companions, and the great leaders, we prepare them for the mission of saving humanity from the hellfire on the brink of which they stand.

Yeah, we really do need to keep sending money to these folks. After all, they NEED us Apes and Pigs to keep sending them money to help them to destroy us. And lets send Jimmy Carter to talk to them too, Carter helped Iran to strengthen Hezbollah into what it is today, I'm sure he can help Hamas thrive and prosper too. After all, Carter is on their side. Just one of the many reasons Islamic fascists everywhere love our Democrat party.
     

The Jihad Element in Turkish Culture

Turkey's ruling AKP party is Muslim and is often attacked by Turkey's secular socialist left. But Muslim Extremists are also unhappy with the AKP for cooperating with the US and Israel. Radical Turkish Islamists are increasingly preaching Jihad.



Imam Of University In Van: “Listen And Hear! Your Worst Enemy Is The Jew, the Jewish infidels; Even Allah Announced And Warned Us That The Jews Are Our Eternal Enemies”

At an Islamists meeting on March 17, 2008 in Van, organized by the ‘Solidarity with Palestine Platform’, the imam of the university in Van [YYU] Osman Gulacar spoke about the importance of making sacrifices for the Islamic umma and asked everyone in the audience to help the resistance by donating to Islam’s army, promising them rewards in heaven:

Follow the link for the text, and photos of the event. Not exactly a fun group.




Radical Islamist In Van: “There Are Many Brave Sons In Every Corner Of This Country Who Yearn To Sacrifice Their Lives To Defend Palestine Against The Rabid Jews Whom Allah Declared Our Enemy”

The Islamist activist and chief editor of many Islamist websites Nureddin Sirin is a permanent speaker in most of the increasingly frequent and jihadist Islamist events, rallies and gatherings all across Turkey. Following are excerpts of what he said on March 17, 2008 in Van:

You can follow the link for the text... Ugh. I had posted previously about religious reforms in Turkey that the government was introducing, to help bring Turkey and Islam into the 21st century. But whenever reforms are introduced into Islam, they are usually met with resistance, often violent. It would seem that the Jihadi element of Islam in Turkey is attempting to assert itself. But how large is it, and how large will it grow?

The secular socialist left maintains that the Islamists are a part of the AKP. The AKP, while being religious conservatives, maintain they are not extremists. Thus far they have not endorsed Jihad officially by their actions, although some AKP members have given speeches to the Jihadists that have encouraged them in their extremist views.

It seems the AKP is attempting a balancing act. How successful they will be at maintaining it remains to be seen.
     

Dr. Wafa Sultan condemned to death...

... for speaking out and telling the truth. More death-threat fatwa crap from Islamo-fascists. Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. at Townhall.com reports:

A Truly Endangered Species

[...] Dr. Sultan is currently in hiding somewhere in this country after an appearance on March 4th on the Islamofascists’ favorite television network, Al-Jazeera. In the course of a heated debate about the Danish cartoons with an Egyptian Islamist named Tal'at Rmeih, she bravely declared:

“All religions and faiths, throughout the history of humanity, have been subject to criticism and affronts. With time, this has helped in their reform and development. Any belief that chops off the heads of its critics is doomed to turn into terrorism and tyranny. This has been the condition of Islam, from its inception to this day. Islam has sentenced [its critics] to prison, and whoever crosses the threshold of that prison meets his death. The Danish cartoons have managed to break down the first brick in the wall of that prison, and to open up a window, through which the sunrays enter, after a lengthy darkness. The Danish newspaper exercised its freedom of speech. Liberties are the holiest thing in the West, and nothing is more important. But if Islam were not the way it is, those cartoons would never have appeared.”

Dr. Sultan added: “If you want to change the course of events, you must reexamine your terrorist teachings, you must recognize and respect the right of the other to live, you must teach your children love, peace, coexistence, and productive work. When you do that, the world will respect you, will consider you in a better light, and will draw you in a better light.”

On March 16, one of the world’s preeminent Islamofascists, Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi took to the airwaves of Al Jazeera to denounce Wafa Sultan and provide the religious basis for her murder. [...]

As if that isn't bad enough, the Murderous Sheik and his colleagues are engaged by prominent commercial institutions to serve as “Shariah advisors” ... read the whole article for the details. Such murderous thugs do not need to be supported by Westerners, and we certainly shouldn't be supporting commercial institutions that support them.

Here are Youtube videos, excerpts of the of the Al Jazeera appearance by Dr. Sultan on March 4th:



Dr. Sultan debates an Egyptian Islamist, Tal'at Rmeih, on the current state of Western-Islamic relations against the backdrop of the Danish Cartoon Scandal. The clips are divided into two segments, each is about 6 minutes long.



Al Jazeera later issued an apology for letting her speak, and on a later show, Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi takes it further... see the article for more details.

Closer to home, on a related note, there is this:

CAIR Portrays "War on Terrorism" as Malicious "War on Islam"

While it is certainly true that not all Muslims are our enemies, and we are not at war with the whole of Islam, it's clear that a portion of Islam is at war with us, whether we wish it or not. Those among us who support that war need to be exposed for who they are, and treated accordingly.


Related Links:

Wafa Sultan interview: A "crack in the wall"

Wafa Sultan and Nasar Khader both endure death threats

     

Humanitarian Aid for Palestinians at work...

From the MEMRI Blog:

From MEMRI TV: Child Stabs President Bush to Death and Turns the White House into a Mosque in a Hamas TV Puppet Show on Hamas TV


Click here to view this clip

We keep sending them "Humanitarian" aid, so they can be free to use their own time and money to make crap like this to brainwash their kids with, instead of working to support their families. Is it any wonder they feel embolden to kill us? Even they believe that anyone who would be stupid enough to give them money doesn't deserve to live. So why do we keep doing it?
     

"Fitna", the Geert Wilder's Film, is here

I believe it's been banned from Youtube, you can see it posted on LiveLeak for now, here is the URL:

Fitna the Movie: Geert Wilders' film about the Quran (English)

Michelle Malkin has posted about it here:

Fitna has arrived; Update: “Restraint?” We’ll see; Plus: A case of mistaken identity

[...] It’s 15 minutes with scenes of jihad interlaced with quotes from the Koran. We are reminded of 9/11, Madrid, the murder of Theo van Gogh, and the threats to Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s life.

The film ends not with any blasphemous image of Mohammed, but with an image of a hand about to tear out the murderous verses of the Koran and a sound effect of tearing (with a caption explaining that the sound was actually the sound of a page being torn from a phonebook).

Prepare for more March Madness. I don’t know what “solidarity” is in Dutch, but show it by embedding the video, e-mailing it, and writing about it. Their fight for the right to criticize the Religion of Perpetual Outrage is our fight. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) The phonebook page caption is an interesting gesture, to try to avoid offending Muslims. I'm sure it will make no difference at all to those who are determined to be offended, or looking for any excuse to riot. There is only one message for thugs like that:


"I will not submit"


UPDATE 03-28-08:

It got pulled off-line, due to threats by Muslims. Surprise surprise. That's what happens when you bend over backwards to tolerate the intolerant; they feel they have the "right" to silence any criticism of themselves, even by the force of violence and death threats. Fascism knows no limits in the face of weakness. When will the appeasers among us understand this?

There may be some bit-torrent links that still work, but I don't use bit-torrent. If a reliable, lasting link to the film appears anywhere, I'll post it here.


UPDATE 03-31-08:
Here is a new link with the movie:

Fitna the movie

Let's see how long it lasts. Also, Maynard at Tammy Bruce's blog has more links here:

"Fitna"

So "Fitna" ended up on YouTube. Click to view the English-subtitled Part 1 and Part 2. The 15-minute film consists of verses from the Koran interspersed with violent media clips. (Here is an abridged 10-minute version without the Netherlands-specific material).

You can read his entire post for more details and commentary.


Related Links:

Censorship from the Cowards at Youtube

Worse than Wilders. But No Death Threats

Algerian Journalist Posts Geert Wilders' "Fitna" Film On His Blog

Appeasing the Islamists: Geert Wilders’s Ordeal and the Lessons of the Past